 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 »
|
Vitalik is a good coder but Ethereim is not flawless. For example, Vitalik is currently trying to make Ethereum more decentralized which is very difficult because PoS causes centralisation.
It is a very difficult task, Vitalik is facing.
Nothing is flawless. Not even Bitcoin. Bitcoin developers had to work hard and continue to develop it to make it usable for everyone. Here you prove your argument completely wrong. As I've said every code needs a developer and Bitcoin was lucky to have a good chief developer. He foresaw a lot of critical points and coded a very good code because today, Bitcoin is still leading. The bitcoin chain and the system weren't like this.
Bitcoin was very flawless from its beginning because if it had flaws it would not be leading today. I am saying it again: It does not depend on who coded the coin.
Wrong, it completely depends on who codes a coin. It depends on how qualityful the code is.
And to write code, you need a coder. Do you even know who coded the Binance exchange?
Maybe CZ did a part of it or he just hired a few people, but we can say for sure: no one got famous for coding Binance. It was too centralized to be of notable instance. Yet they are the number one Centralized exchange. You cannot deny that.
Why should I deny it? It's a highly centralized exchange where security leaks have been around many times and I would not store any coin on Binance. I cannot trust a coin just because a famous developer developed it. There are a lot of famous cheaters in the history. There are a lot of talented hackers who have hacked a billions of dollars online. Do not trust the developer. Verify his codes.
You can trust a coin if your review his code and usually a good code requires a good coder as it is for Bitcoin. Or a bad developer won't be able to code a good coin as he lacks knowledge to do so. It is like if you expect a good code from someone who's not able to deliever a good code because he can't code it. Coder matters for a good code , it is very uncontroversial still you deny simple facts. |
|
|
|
A coin cannot be better just because some popular coder developed it. Satoshi did not publish some other coins before BTC. We don't even know him. Should we consider him a bad coder or BTC as a bad coin?
It can, just look at Bitcoin. Bitcoin has very good code, it is decentralized and Satoshi Nakamoto got famous for it. Bitcoin is a really good example, why it's relevant to trust only good code. Satoshi got famous for what he did. Bitcoin developers are known to offer a good code as well, see my post Bitcoin is very safe coin because of good developers. Do you understand what I am talking about? Yes, but you need to consider which developer is good and which one is not. Looking at his code will show us if he is good or not. Of course, I can't know it for new code and I have to wait for experts to review it. Do you think Vitalik is a good coder?
Vitalik is a good coder but Ethereim is not flawless. For example, Vitalik is currently trying to make Ethereum more decentralized which is very difficult because PoS causes centralisation. It is a very difficult task, Vitalik is facing. |
|
|
|
|
Well, Bitcoin is still very new compared to gold, for example, so I can imagine, we should not remove such a warning.
Putting all of our money or even taking a loan to buy Bitcoin is not recommended at all.
When it comes to investing, people need to be very careful and advice is always helpful.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm currently planning to update all of my addresses from Legacy Addresses to SegWit (bech32) Addresses because I want to save more transaction fees when doing transactions. It will also be beneficial because it'll lead to less congestion if everyone switches to SegWit.
I would like to start consolidating my addresses, when transaction fees are getting lower again due to a less congested Mempool.
But I'm wondering if it makes sense to switch even from native SegWit (bech32) to Taproot Addresses (bech32m) to save even more fees.
Does someone know if Taproot Addresses (bech32m) are saving more fees compared to native SegWit (bech32) Addresses?
|
|
|
|
|
You are right, privacy is very valuable and we should always have our privacy in min, when doing a transaction or even submitting our data somewhere. Best bet is to avoid entering our personal data anywhere and just buy in a local shop, where we can buy anonymously.
Entering our personal data somewhere always makes us vulnerable by exposing our privacy.
A centralized privacy provider poses huge risk because all data needs to be processed at such centralized privacy providers. It is a single point of failure.
We can do a lot to gain more privacy, alone by avoiding a centralized service, where our coins can be tracked and even frozen. Centralized exchanges are tempring to send our coins to because it's easier but it's better to avoid to send our coins to a centralized exchange.
|
|
|
|
Yes, BNB and TRON are a bad coin and AVAX and YFI are good coin. Where is it fuck?
BNB and TRON simply have bad developers and having a good developer meas having disadvantages in competition against competing coins and such coins might fail long-term.
Okay cool. But you cannot go away with your broken logic. It's not broken logic, it's very good logic. Please prove to me that YFI is a better coin than BNB or TRX not who coded it.
Who coded it is very relevant because if it's a bad coder, it will be a flawed code and get exploited later, like Terra Luna. A good developer will prevent flaws in his code because he will see if it can get exploited. And from a normal perspective, only a good coder can code a good coin which is really decentralized. Many coders can code a centralized coin but only a good coder can code a good decentralized coin. Or how many working decentralized competing coins against Bitcoin do you see? Not much because it is very difficult to come close to what Satoshi Nakamoto has coded. You created the same thread in another forum a long time ago and a long time has passed already, how long your coins will take to surpass the BNB and prove themself as better coin than BNB and TRX?
It can take very long because investors are greedy and or stupid not doing enough research. See how much market capitalization some Memecoins have. It's really sad to see but it is how it is. We need to drop centralized shitcoins and go for decentralized coins, which we don't have much because like I already explained above. At least give some logic as that why BNB and TRX are bad and YFI is better than those coins.
It's all about code and decentralization. Many coders can code a centralized, flawed shitcoin but only a good coder can code a good decentralized coin. See my text above. Who is coder from a coin is very important. A coin cannot be better just because some popular coder developed it. Satoshi did not publish some other coins before BTC. We don't even know him. Should we consider him a bad coder or BTC as a bad coin?
It can, just look at Bitcoin. Bitcoin has very good code, it is decentralized and Satoshi Nakamoto got famous for it. Bitcoin is a really good example, why it's relevant to trust only good code. Satoshi got famous for what he did. Bitcoin developers are known to offer a good code as well, see my post Bitcoin is very safe coin because of good developers. |
|
|
|
It is not a crime to publish my text from Altcoinstalks als here on Bitcointalk.
This is an anonymous forum. It doesn't recognize people, it only recognizes users/accounts so it's best if you state where you got your article from. Secondly, what's the point of coping and pasting the exact same thing you wrote somewhere else about 3 years ago? Why not just drop the link for us to go to the original post and read? It's my article. And I have published my article here because Bitcointalk needs new input and a proper text to be published also on Bitcointalk. If it's only on Altcoinstalk, traffic would go to Altcointalks for viewing my article. While for BNB and TRON, we don't have such a track record. Is CZ from Binance a good coder? I doubt it...
Is Justin Sun a good coder? No because he has no track record.
One reason will not trust BNB is because it's a centralized coin. I don't trust all centralized coins. Binance, being one of the biggest CEX in the world currently won't get bad Devs to develop their coin. They can afford the best and I feel they did that because BNB is doing very well currently. You are right, a centralized coin can't be trusted. Much more people need to realize how centralized BNB really is. |
|
|
|
For us, it’s only possible to stay away from such shady shitcoins.
All shitcoins are shady by virtue. You are right. Shitcoins are shady itself and by avoiding Shitcoins, we are making a good call. We might make differences between coins because some Altcoin developers are having credibility but we need to make a really good research. |
|
|
|
Despite the fact that this post was created by you several years ago on other forums, it would be a good thing to transfer here not only the information but also the link to the place where this post was originally posted. If you respect the rules of the forum, of course. Although, it is not clear why he drags information here that is open on the Internet and is not new. www.altcoinstalks.com/index.php?topic=217512.0It is not a crime to publish my text from Altcoinstalks also here on Bitcointalk. This should be regarded as pure plagiarism of self, he would have made is easy and simpler for himself by giving a link as reference, I don't think he even made any additional informations to the content than just copy and paste, was it that you have not read the rules and regulations here or because you think it's a different platform, don't take some cases into your hands and judge OP, do the needful if you don't want to be banned.
Your accusations don't have any value because you can't accuse me of plagiarism where you can't plagiarise yourself, what a joke post. Post reported. Dev examples for bad coins
Binance coin [BNB]
Tron coin [TRON]
Now you know: Dev is very important for coding every coin and research about it will make us find good coins for a profit!
So you consider BNB and TRON as a bad coin and AVAX and YFI as a good coin? What the fuck? Okay, I don't have coding knowledge as well and I don't know which one is a good one and which one is bad. But just because Binance did not reveal who is the coder of BNB, does it make BNB a bad coin? What a logic dude. You could have revealed some weak points about BNB and Tron and then we could understand why BNB and TRON are bad and why AVAX and YFI are good coins. Let's assume you are right. Then could you please tell me why BNB is ranked 4 when it comes to the top 10 coins and your so-called YFI at 244? The good coin YFI should beat BNB if they are proven as good. Right? Could you please post some logic and explanation? Yes, BNB and TRON are a bad coin and AVAX and YFI are good coin. Where is it fuck? BNB and TRON simply have bad developers and having a good developer meas having disadvantages in competition against competing coins and such coins might fail long-term. Take Avalanche for example. Sir Emin and his team are well known to be academics. Sir Emin is a Professor at a US University. He knows very well what he's doing. He is a really famous computer scientist and has a huge reputation as a professor at Cornell University in America. He has written so many academic research and gained a lot of knowledge which lead to his invention of Avalanche. At Avalanche, also Kevin Sekniqi is a dev, who is also a computer scientist from Cornell University in America. Avalanche devs are really scientific and have achieved so much technical code. While for BNB and TRON, we don't have such a track record. Is CZ from Binance a good coder? I doubt it... Is Justin Sun a good coder? Definitely no because he has no track record. |
|
|
|
clogging the mempools with ordinals and hashrate manipulation is being done as I type.
You are right, ordinals spam has proven to be a big issue for Bitcoin and tx fees were very high when it ordinals was very famous. I hope it will stay like right now because transaction fees are back to normal. |
|
|
|
I too make mistakes when I was a newbie , and I also take corrections, and also learn from others, but the most important thing is to follow the rules of the forum it guide you more in order for you not make mistakes continuously
A very important issue is to review coins diligently. For example, many Altcoins are fraud and need to be avoided. Revieweing developers and each technology behind a coin is very important for us to make a profit. Quite contrary to PoS, PoW is very hard or almost impossible to compromise. Not so for PoS, where more attack vectors can be found. For example, PoS can be abused by rich stakers. Many PoS projects have a so-called pre-mining of coins allocated to the team and the team can abuse such pre-mined coins to gain influence about project decisions. A large pre-mine is making a project centralized in many ways and devs can gain much influence by staking a large amount of PoS coins. PoW is not having such issues. A similar problem is called “nothing at stake”, where attackers benefit from no cost to stake ETH or similar PoS coins. Should a fork occur, no matter if the fork is a friendly, accidental or a malicious attempt to rewrite history and reverse transactions, it’s a given strategy for any staker to stake on every chain. By doing so, he will get a reward no matter which fork will succeed and he will have no additional cost to do so. In PoW, such a problem is not happening because PoW always means work (spending electricity) needs to be done. A cost occurs for every miner. So, you can see, it is very difficult but also very important to review a coin. |
|
|
|
|
Altcoins have proven to be unreliable again and again due to a various incidents. Yes, Altcoins can also bring us some gains but what if risks are much higher compared to advantages? And for Alt coins, risks have proven to be much higher compared to advantages
As a bagholder of such coins, we have a big risk to suffer a loss. Previously, Altcoins have caused lossed from:
- Getting hacked
- Turning out to be a scam
- Project failed (Terra Luna)
- Being bad tech and lacking to be competitive against Bitcoin
- Developers abandoning a project
- Failing to register at SEC
- Selling out to big investors
- Team members dumping coins masssively
- High inflation compared to Bitcoin
We can list much more reasons here but it’s a list of famous reasons already. And it’s a growing list, too.
A big issue: many Altcoins are centralized
It’s very obvious, why Altcoins are a big danger: a lack of decentralisation – or too much centralization, how we would view it.
Being centralized is making such coins very flawed and prone to hacks. Also, founders can be dishonest much more easily in a centralized project.
Decentralisation is key to make a coin less prone to hacks and Bitcoin, for example, is decentralized. And Bitcoin has proven to be very reliable.
PoW vs. PoS
Quite contrary to PoS, PoW is very hard or almost impossible to compromise. Not so for PoS, where more attack vectors can be found.
For example, PoS can be abused by rich stakers. Many PoS projects have a so-called pre-mining of coins allocated to the team and the team can abuse such pre-mined coins to gain influence about project decisions.
A large pre-mine is making a project centralized in many ways and devs can gain much influence by staking a large amount of PoS coins. PoW is not having such issues.
A similar problem is called “nothing at stake”, where attackers benefit from no cost to stake ETH or similar PoS coins. Should a fork occur, no matter if the fork is a friendly, accidental or a malicious attempt to rewrite history and reverse transactions, it’s a given strategy for any staker to stake on every chain. By doing so, he will get a reward no matter which fork will succeed and he will have no additional cost to do so.
In PoW, such a problem is not happening because PoW always means work (spending electricity) needs to be done. A cost occurs for every miner and he can’t mine on multiple chains because mining of a different chain means an extra cost.
SEC needs to crush Ripple
Ripple is a centralized shitcoin operated by fraudsters. It was confirmed multiple times, where Ripple’s CEO, Brad Garlinghouse, was involved in fraudulent shilling techniques.
Ripple is clearly a centralized project and SEC needs to take action against Ripple. Hopefully, SEC will win against Ripple because Ripple has committed lots of fraud already.
How can we avoid making a loss?
For us, it’s only possible to stay away from such shady shitcoins.
Many centralized Altcoins are a big danger.
Please, don’t buy such shitcoins.
We have much better coins, like Bitcoin or Ethereum.
|
|
|
|
|
PoW vs. PoS should be an important topic, when reviewing a coin.
Pro and Contra Pos vs. PoW
Quite contrary to PoS, PoW is very hard or almost impossible to compromise. Not so for PoS, where more attack vectors can be found.
For example, PoS can be abused by rich stakers. Many PoS projects have a so-called pre-mining of coins allocated to the team and the team can abuse such pre-mined coins to gain influence about project decisions.
A large pre-mine is making a project centralized in many ways and devs can gain much influence by staking a large amount of PoS coins.
PoW is not having such issues.
A similar problem is called "nothing at stake", where attackers benefit from no cost to stake ETH or similar PoS coins. Should a fork occur, no matter if the fork is a friendly, accidental or a malicious attempt to rewrite history and reverse transactions, it’s a given strategy for any staker to stake on every chain. By doing so, he will get a reward no matter which fork will succeed and he will have no additional cost to do so.
In PoW, such a problem is not happening because PoW always means work (spending electricity) needs to be done. A cost occurs for every miner and he can’t mine on multiple chains because mining of a different chain means an extra cost.
Do you have more reason against / pro PoW / PoS?
|
|
|
|
It is very important to have your coins stored safe from any hacker. It's your coins and you need to protect it. When you have coins but connected or stored in a online wallet and a hacker connects to your computer, he can steal your coins! Solution is: try to avoid online wallet and instead only use paper wallet, here from MEW where you can really generate your keys offline where never a hacker can see your private keys because it is always generated offline. Note private and public key on paper, save it at a USB stick and never store it at your computer when it's online. Always offline creation will give hackers no access to your private key: MEW offline is even more safe compared to hardware wallet like Ledger or Trezor. At MEW offline, you are creating your private keys yourself and have full control about creating it. Nobody knows which person at Ledger created your private key and if he has noted your private key. Also, when sending a transaction you need to connect Ledger to your online device, if you re-use addresses and a hacker has connected before, you would need to generate completely new address. Hardware wallet like Ledger also stores your data which is very bad for privacy. When Ledger personal data was hacked recently, many people were affected. No coins were stolen but personal data. Such accident can never happen at MEW because MEW is not a company, you personal data is never collected and never stored. Yourself has full control when creating an original MEW paper wallet. MEW paper wallet is real, encrypted Ethereum original code! Someone made a tutorial about how to create a MEW offline wallet and he is expert for computer scientist. He really knows coding well and has made a great tutorial, first part is about creatin address: https://feest.io/generate-offline-ethereum-wallet/It is easy described step by step how you can create a MEW offline paper wallet. Today, MEW looks a bit different but MEW offline is still available at GitHub. It will be even possible to create MEW offline paper wallet in 100 years offline MEW because it's based on MEW original code. It's 100% encoded Ethereum technology!! MEW available on GitHub: https://github.com/MyEtherWallet/MyEtherWallet/releasesYou need only to make sure to save your keys offline on paper at a private location, where it's safe. |
|
|
|
When you exchange your valuable Bitcoin or Ethereum for a different alt coin, you really need to research which devs are behind it. It is very important because devs are making a project successful, or if it’s a bad dev, can make it fail. A good dev should have huge knowledge in crypto, coding and computer science because he needs to achieve a secure and fast blockchain. If he does not make a good code, such platform can be hacked and coins will be lost and lose value because of price dump. Dev examples of good coins: Bitcoin BTCBitcoin is built by Satoshi Nakamoto who made a really big invention: PoW He created Bitcoin and it worked very well. Many people were impressed by his coding skills. Today, really good devs are still developing Bitcoin like Peter Wuille and George Antonopoulos. Bitcoin has very good devs and it was proven, when Bitcoin’s Seg Wit was developed because it was a great invention. Bitcoin is a very clear example for good devs. Ethereum [ETH]Ethereum is also very famous for good code and huge achievements. Behind Ethereum are great devs like Vitalik Buterin and Joseph Lubin. Vitalik Buterin is very wise, a great computer scientist and coder who has shown his skills in Ethereum and is developing Ethereum 2.0, a huge coding network. Ethereum has really a great team of devs. Avalanche [AVAX]Avalanche was invented by Emin Gün Sirer. He is a really famous computer scientist and has a huge reputation as a professor at Cornell University in America. He has written so many academic research and gained a lot of knowledge which lead to his invention of Avalanche. At Avalanche, also Kevin Sekniqi is a dev, who is also a computer scientist from Cornell University in America. Avalanche devs are really scientific and have achieved so much technical code. Yearn Finance [YFI]Yearn Finance has a really great dev, Andre Cronje. Andre Cronje invented Yearn Finance before Defi got famous. He is for Defi what Satoshi Nakamoto is for crypto when Satoshi invented Bitcoin.  Andre Cronje has written such a good code to enable a decentralized finance. Yearn Finance is currently very undervalued because many shit Defi projects are doing a better marketing. Dev examples for bad coinsBinance coin [BNB]Binance is a very weak platform and very unproven. And has it real devs? Because Binance CEO does not seem to be a coder. He’s only active at marketing. Binance seems to be really a bad coin. Tron coin [TRON]Tron coin was launched by Justin Sun to defeat Ethereum but people don’t like Tron. It can be seen easily about Justin Sun’s coding skills: he can’t it! For Tron’s devs it can be seen clearly: Tron has no scientific standards which are needed for defeat Ethereum. Like Binance, Justin Sun from Tron is only good for marketing and for coding, Tron is like Binance not a robust network. Maybe it’s simple copy paste. Now you know: Dev is very important for coding every coin and research about it will make us find good coins for a profit! |
|
|
|
The main difference is that bitcoin is completely decentralized while ethereum isn't.
Very true and main reason of it boils down to PoW vs. PoS. Quite contrary to PoS, PoW is very hard or almost impossible to compromise. Not so for PoS, where more attack vectors can be found. For example, PoS can be abused by rich stakers. Many PoS projects have a so-called pre-mining of coins allocated to the team and the team can abuse such pre-mined coins to gain influence about project decisions. A large pre-mine is making a project centralized in many ways and devs can gain much influence by staking a large amount of PoS coins. PoW is not having such issues. A similar problem is called “nothing at stake”, where attackers benefit from no cost to stake ETH or similar PoS coins. Should a fork occur, no matter if the fork is a friendly, accidental or a malicious attempt to rewrite history and reverse transactions, it’s a given strategy for any staker to stake on every chain. By doing so, he will get a reward no matter which fork will succeed and he will have no additional cost to do so. In PoW, such a problem is not happening because PoW always means work (spending electricity) needs to be done. A cost occurs for every miner. |
|
|
|
No interview with theymos available? Or will theymos not reply because of privacy?
No. Complex issue. Some people are very busy, while others take a long time to publish an interview. All right, it's also many questions and takes time to reply to each question. |
|
|
|
|
Please stop feeding the troll.
|
|
|
|
if you care more about core devs than you do about the network. you already lost
I don't care about core devs, I care about results of core devs and Bitcoin's result is a consistent history of good code and good work made by core devs to reject stupid decisions. In comparison, all forks have failed miserably. guess you have not noticed the ordinals exploit caused by softening consensus rules and allowing junky/funky transactions without network readiness.. guess you have not noticed how core devs have avoided fixing bitcoin exploits and instead motivated people to use other networks. guess you have no noticed the fee estimation and bumpfee code that has caused fees to increment faster/higher.. seems you are over utopianising bitcoin core devs like gods which then opens up more risks to bitcoin by clouding over the issues that should be highlighted good security is not ass kissing devs and saying everything they done is a perfect dream. but instead holding core devs responsible and scrutinising them to ensure they dont get away with too many issues. holding them accountable helps the network. holding their butt cheek in a loving grasp does not help the network Bitcoin might have few difficulties right now, but tell me any crypto currencies having less problems while providing similar levels of security while being used as much. I'm not a coder but so far, Bitcoin core developers have always delivered a very successful crypto currency. I'm just giving credit to Bitcoin core developers where credit is due. |
|
|
|
|
